MLB Starting Pitching at 2015’s Mid-Point: “McGinnity’s,” Eovaldi’s and Anderson’s

At the nominal half-way point of Commissioner Rob Manfred’s inaugural MLB season, 1,330 games have been completed, leaving an even 1,100 to be played. (Was his predecessor’s scheduling ever so accommodating?)

All those games were started by 261 different pitchers, an average of just over five games per player. Slightly more than 50 percent of them (136) have been entrusted with 10 or more games.  Over half of MLB’s 2015 starting pitching assignments have been filled by a group of 80 “full-timers” who’ve each logged a minimum of 17 starts. (Some of the names on that list might surprise you, say a “breaking down” CC Sabathia or a relative novice like Nathan Eovaldi, both mainstays in the Yankee rotation.)

An average of 8.7 starting pitchers per team has been utilized. Sixteen teams have trotted out either eight or nine different guys; another eight teams, topped by the Dodgers at 12, are in double-digits. San Diego’s trudged along for 90 games with a mere six starting pitchers – including the injury-prone Brandon Morrow who has not pitched since early May.

Relief pitchers have been the pitcher-of-record for slightly less than 30 percent of all winning/losing decisions this season. The Cub and Dodger bullpen crews each account for 40+ percent of their teams’ total decisions as well as of their winning decisions. On the other end of the spectrum, the Cleveland Indian relief specialists sport a collective 7-5 record after 88 contests.

Such volume of bullpen work shouldn’t surprise, given that complete games in today’s MLB are about as common as rotary phone dials – exactly 2.03 percent were your odds of seeing a CG during the season’s first 99 days. Far more likely, though, would have been a good strong seven-inning outing – there have been 816 of them in 2015, roughly as often as a bullpen decision.

The Indians, White Sox and Mets boast a “long start” rate above 40 percent. The dreadful Phillies have but 15 such performances to their credit, of which eleven belong to the soon-to-dealt (?) Cole Hamels. Oddly, the only other staff below 20 percent in LS’s … the defending American League champion and division-leading Kansas City Royals. (The Royals also rank in the bottom tier in bullpen decisions at just about one-fourth.)

Zach Greinke of the Dodgers and Houston phenom Dallas Keuchel started the All-Star Game. Max Scherzer has replaced Clayton Kershaw as the game’s best regular-season starter. Felix remains a King. And Bartolo Colon, like Ol’ Man River, just keeps rollin’ along. 

There are also, currently, nine Iron Men – full-time starters with a 60+ percent rate for LS’s.

Scherzer  18 starts (14 long, 79%), 3 CG’s, 1 No-Decision, 2.278 (No. 2)*

Jeff Samardzija  18 starts (13 long, 72%), 1 CG, 8 No-Decisions, 1.667 (No. 13)*

Johnny Cueto  17 starts (12 long, 71%), 1 CG, 5 No-Decisions, 1.706 (No. 12)*

Chris Sale  17 starts (11 long, 65%), 1 CG, 5 No-Decisions, 1.942 (No. 7)*

Keuchel  19 starts (12 long, 63%), 3 CG’s, 4 No-Decisions, 2.316 (No. 1)*

Corey Kluber  19 starts (12 long, 63%), 1 CG, 5 No-Decisions, 1.158 (No. 76)*

Hamels  18 starts (11 long, 61%), 0 CG’s, 6 No-Decisions, 1.333 (No. 44)*

Felix Hernandez  18 starts (11 long, 61%), 2 CG’s, 2 No-Decisions, 2.111 (No. 5)*

John Lackey  18 starts (11 long, 61%), 1 CG, 6 No-Decisions, 1.555 (No. 16)*

*This score and ranking combines outcome and endurance. Here’s the idea.

And as for Senor Colon, his 17 starts continue to qualify him as a full-timer despite the Mets’ flirtation of late with a six-man rotation. He has failed to earn the decision only once, a feat matched by only three other pitchers with 10 or more starts.

The dubious distinction of notching the most No-Decision starts, with 10, belongs to the Diamondbacks’ Chase Anderson, not to be confused with the Dodgers’ Brett who has only eight ND’s … you might say he’s in the chase.

WNBA 2015: 6-week Ratings

Michael Cooper’s Atlanta Dream are a confounding lot, indeed. They possess the requisite superstar in Olympian Angel McCoughtry, one of them ultra-sonic “bigs” in Sancho Lyttle, a seasoned and savvy traditional post player in Brazilian Erika de Sousa. UConn-prepped Tiffany Hayes has stepped into the Reverie. Coop’s even looking ahead as he plays “bad cop” with the uniquely skilled but poorly conditioned Shoni Schimmel, endorsement opportunity and All-Star voting be damned.

The numbers say they’re beasts on the backboards and create a turnover once in every five opponent possessions. Alas, they similarly give the ball away just as frequently and are the league’s gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

The Grading Scale

To rank the teams, we’ll consider Points per game, Points per shot (i.e. field goal attempt), Points per possession and S(H)UM. (That last category is simply the sum of a team’s FG%, 3FG% and FT%.)

Again, we’ll rank the teams from 1 to 12 in all criteria and simply add up the rankings.

No. 1 Chicago Sky [5]

[4-week rating: 1

2-week rating: 1]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

85.9 [1^st] – 1.229 [2^nd] –1.050 [1^st] – 1644 [1^st]

No. 2 Indiana Fever [13]

[4-week rating: 3

2-week rating: 5]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

79.3 [3^rd] – 1.233 [1^st] –0.992 [4^th] – 1555 [5^th]

No. 2 Minnesota Lynx [13]

[4-week rating: 2

2-week rating: 2]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

77.2 [5^th] – 1.194 [3^rd] –1.001 [3^rd] – 1640 [2^nd]

No. 4 Phoenix Mercury [16]

[4-week rating: 6

2-week rating: 6]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

77.6 [4^th] – 1.189 [4^th] –0.980 [5^th] – 1605 [3^th]

No. 5 Tulsa Shock [16.5]

[4-week rating: 4

2-week rating: 3] 

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

80.5 [2^nd] – 1.142 [6^th] –1.009 [2^nd] – 1547 [6^th]

No. 6 Los Angeles Sparks [27]

[4-week rating: 9

2-week rating: 12]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

71.4 [10^th] – 1.139 [7^th] –0.952 [6^th] – 1586 [4^th]

No. 7 Connecticut Sun [32]

[4-week rating: 7

2-week rating: 4]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

75.9 [6^th] – 1.089 [10^th] –0.940 [7^th] – 1498 [9^th]

No. 7 New York Liberty [32]

[4-week rating: 8

2-week rating: 7]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

73.3 [8^th] – 1.163 [5^th] –0.924 [9^th] – 1481 [10^th]

No. 9 Washington Mystics [34]

[4-week rating: 5

2-week rating: 8] 

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

72.2 [9^th] – 1.112 [9^th] –0.939 [8^th] – 1510 [8^th]

No. 10 Seattle Storm [36.5]

[4-week rating: 10

2-week rating: 10] 

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

68.2 [12^th] – 1.131 [8^th] –0.895 [10^th] – 1547 [6^th]

No. 11 Atlanta Dream [43]

[4-week rating: 12

2-week rating: 9]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

73.7 [7^th] – 1.068 [12^th] –0.887 [12^th] – 1448 [12^th]

No. 12 San Antonio Stars [44]

[4-week rating: 11

2-week rating: 11]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

70.0 [11^th] – 1.078 [11^th] –0.890 [11^th] – 1449 [11^th] 

Are the Sky Legit?

Some home cookin’ has propelled the Chicago Sky offensive juggernaut to the top of the quite competitive Eastern Conference.

Here’s how the teams rate after 42 days. (All data reflects play through Thursday, July 16.)

Power Rankings --The Measurement Instrument

Our team-ranking tool utilizes four elements. Two scales are based solely on team wins and losses; the others are measures of the efficiency of team performance in comparison with the competition. First, we’ll simply use win-loss record irrespective of conference.

The second criterion will be the difference between a team’s road wins and its home losses. Since this cute little metric is said to be a personal favorite of current Sacramento Kings coach George Karl, let’s call this the Karl Kount (KK).

Criterion No. 3, Conversion Quotient (CQ), involves the rate at which a team converts its possessions into a successful field goals or free throw attempts. Like the KK, the computation is simple subtraction—a team’s rate of offensive efficiency minus that of the opponent.

Lastly, please allow Abacus to introduce the “SPOR-t” score. SPOR-t stands for “Shooting Plus Offensive Rebounds minus turnovers.” Add a team’s FG percentage and its offensive rebounding percentage (o. boards divided by missed FG’s). Then subtract the percentage of a team’s possessions lost to turnovers. For example, a team shoots field goals at a .488 clip, its offensive rebounds account for .199 of its missed field goals, and .143 of its possessions result in a turnover. So its SPOR-t is (488+199-143) or 544. Once again, our measurement will be the difference between the SPOR-t scores of a team and its opposition.

We’ll rank the teams from 1 to 12 in all criteria and simply add up the rankings. Low score wins, naturally.

No. 1 Minnesota Lynx (4.5)

[4-week Abacus rating: 1

2-week Abacus rating: 2]

10-3, .769; 1^st seed West / 1^st overall                                            

KK:  +4; (5 Road Wins – 1 Home Loss) / No. 1 overall (tied)

CQ:  +63; (.487 [3^rd] - .424 [2^nd]) / No. 1 overall

SPOR-t:  +102; (528 [3^rd] – 426 [2^nd]) / No. 1 overall

No. 2 Chicago Sky (12)

[4-week Abacus rating: 5

2-week Abacus rating: 3]

9-5, .643; 1^st seed East / 3^th overall (tied)*

KK:  +3; (4 Road Wins – 1 Home Loss) / No. 3 overall

CQ:  +48; (.512 [1^st] - .464 [7^th]) / No. 2 overall

SPOR-t:  +67; (565 [1^st] – 498 [7^th]) / No. 3 overall

No. 3 Tulsa Shock (12.5)

[4-week Abacus rating: 2

2-week Abacus rating 1]

10-5, .667; 2^nd seed West / 2^nd overall

KK:  +4; (4 Road Wins – 0 Home Losses) / No. 1 overall (tied)

CQ:  +13; (.482 [4^th] - .469 [8^th]) / No. 5 overall

SPOR-t:  +66; (550 [2^nd] – 484 [6^th]) / No. 4 overall

No. 4 New York Liberty (14.5)

[4-week Abacus rating: 4

2-week Abacus rating: 6]

9-5, .643; 1^st seed East / 3^rd overall (tied)*

KK:  +1; (3 Road Wins – 2 Home Losses) / No. 5 overall (tied)

CQ:  +41; (.464 [6^th] - .423 [1^st]) / No. 3 overall

SPOR-t:  +96; (491 [5^th] – 395 [1^st]) / No. 2 overall

No. 5 Phoenix Mercury (19)

[4-week Abacus rating: 7

2-week Abacus rating: 7]

9-5, .643; 3^rd seed West / 3^rd overall (tied)*

KK:  +2; (3 Road Wins – 1 Home Loss) / No. 4 overall

CQ:  +28; (.474 [5^th] - .446 [3^rd]) / No. 4 overall

SPOR-t:  -7; (475 [8^th] – 482 [5^th]) / No. 7 overall

No. 6 Connecticut Sun (26.5)

[4-week Abacus rating: 3

2-week Abacus rating: 3]

7-6, .538; 4^th seed East / 7^th overall

KK:  0; (4 Road Wins – 4 Home Losses) / No. 7 overall

CQ:  +4; (.454 [7^th] - .450 [4^th]) / No. 6 overall (tied)

SPOR-t:  +7; (483 [6^th] – 476 [4^th]) / No. 6 overall

No. 7 Indiana Fever (28.5)

[4-week Abacus rating: 8

2-week Abacus rating: 10]

8-6, .571; 3^rd seed East / 6^th overall

KK:  -1; (3 Road Win – 4 Home Losses) / No. 8 overall

CQ:  +4; (.490 [2^nd] - .486 [10^th]) / No. 6 overall (tied)

SPOR-t:  -9; (516 [4^th] – 525 [9^th]) / No. 8 overall

No. 8 Washington Mystics (31.5)

[4-week Abacus rating: 6

2-week Abacus rating: 5]

6-6, .500; 5^th seed East / 8^th overall

KK:  +1; (3 Road Wins – 2 Home Losses) / No. 5 overall (tied)

CQ:  -11; (.449 [9^th] - .460 [5^th]) / No. 8 overall

SPOR-t:  -61; (470 [10^th] – 531 [10^th]) / No. 10 overall

No. 9 Atlanta Dream (32)

[4-week Abacus rating: 9

2-week Abacus rating: 8]

7-8, .467; 6^th seed East / 9^th overall

KK:  -2; (2 Road Wins – 4 Home Losses) / No. 9 overall

CQ:  -22; (.439 [11^th] - .461 [6^th]) / No. 9 overall

SPOR-t:  +33; (481 [7^th] – 448 [3^rd]) / No. 5 overall

No. 10 San Antonio Stars (42.5)

[4-week Abacus rating: 11

2-week Abacus rating: 11]

3-11, .214; 5^th seed West / 11^th overall

KK:  -3; (0 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 10 overall (tied)

CQ:  -50; (.441 [10^th] - .491 [11^th]) / No. 10 overall

SPOR-t:  -112; (446 [11^th] – 558 [12^th]) / No. 11 overall

No. 11 Seattle Storm (43.5)

[4-week Abacus rating: 10

2-week Abacus rating: 9]

4-12, .250; 4^th seed West / 10^th overall

KK:  -3; (1 Road Win – 4 Home Losses) / No. 10 overall (tied)

CQ:  -54; (.425 [12^th] - .479 [9^th]) / No. 11 overall

SPOR-t:  -134; (375 [12^th] – 509 [8^th]) / No. 12 overall

No. 12 Los Angeles Sparks (45)

[4-week Abacus rating: 11

2-week Abacus rating: 12]

2-12, .143; 6^th seed West / 12^th overall

KK:  -5; (0 Road Wins – 5 Home Losses) / No. 12 overall

CQ:  -57; (.454 [8^th] - .511 [12^th]) / No. 12 overall

SPOR-t:  -60; (474 [9^th] – 534 [11^th]) / No. 9 overall

Room for Improvement?

The Sky’s exceptional showing is occurring despite “giving away” 1.79 points each game at the three-point stripe, the second worst (to the Liberty’s whopping -2.93) in the league.

Three-ficiency

As basketball is evolving here in the 21^st Century, “judicious accuracy” and “consistent challenge” seem to capture the offensive and defensive (respectively) philosophies for the more successful teams when it comes to three-point shooting.

Check out the who’s sitting atop the standings or playing deep into the playoffs and invariably these squads invariably hold high ratings in both utilizing and defending the “stripe.”

Let’s try ranking the teams by the difference between their own three-point shooting and that of the opposition. (Attempts and makes are presented “per-game” for ease of comparison.)

No. 1 Indiana Fever   [+56]

[4-week rating: 3

2-week rating: 7] 

.375 [1^st] – 5.79 [4^th] out of 15.43 [6^th]

.319 [5^th] – 4.93 [6^th] out of 15.43 [7^th]

No. 2 Tulsa Shock   [+53]

[4-week rating: 2

2-week rating: 2]

.355 [3^rd] – 7.07 [1^st] out of 19.93 [1^st]

.302 [2^nd] – 4.47 [3^rd] out of 14.8 [5^th]

No. 3 Washington Mystics   [+43]

[4-week rating: 4

2-week rating: 4]

.318 [8^th] – 5.92 [3^rd] out of 18.58 [2^nd]

.275 [1^st] – 3.5 [1^st] out of 12.57 [2^nd]

No. 4 Minnesota Lynx   [+15]

[4-week rating: 5

2-week rating: 5]

.331 [5^th] – 3.77 [10^th] out of 11.38 [12^th]

.316 [4^th] – 5.54 [10^th] out of 17.54 [11^th]

No. 5 Connecticut Sun   [+13]

[4-week rating: 6

2-week rating: 1]

.341 [4^th] – 6.0 [2^nd] out of 17.62 [3^rd]

.328 [8^th] – 4.54 [4^th] out of 13.85 [3^rd]

No. 6 Phoenix Mercury   [+12]

[4-week rating: 1

2-week rating: 3]

.358 [2^nd] – 5.21 [6^th] out of 14.57 [8^th]

.346 [11^th] – 5.29 [8^th] out of 15.29 [6^th]

No. 7 Seattle Storm   [+1]

[4-week rating: 7

2-week rating: 6] 

.327 [6^th] – 5.63 [5^th] out of 17.19 [4^th]

.326 [6^th] – 5.5 [9^th] out of 16.88 [10^th]

No. 8 Atlanta Dream   [-15]

[4-week rating: 12

2-week rating: 9]

.300 [10^th] – 4.53 [8^th] out of 15.13 [7^th]

.315 [3^rd] – 4.87 [5^th] out of 15.47 [8^th]

No. 9 Los Angeles Sparks   [-20]

[4-week rating: 8

2-week rating: 12]

.318 [9^th] – 5.0 [7^th] out of 15.7 [5^th]

.338 [9^th] – 5.0 [7^th] out of 14.79 [4^th]

No. 10 Chicago Sky   [-37]

[4-week rating: 11

2-week rating: 10] 

.319 [7^th] – 4.14 [9^th] out of 13.0 [10^th]

.356 [12^th] – 5.93 [11^th] out of 16.64 [9^th]

No. 11 New York Liberty   [-53]

[4-week rating: 9

2-week rating: 11] 

.292 [11^th] – 3.57 [11^th] out of 12.2 [11^th]

.345 [10^th] – 6.5 [12^th] out of 18.86 [12^th]

No. 12 San Antonio Stars   [-76]

[4-week rating: 10

2-week rating: 8] 

.251 [12^th] – 3.36 [12^th] out of 13.36 [9^th]

.327 [7^th] – 3.79 [2^nd] out of 11.57 [1^st]

A Paradigm Shift?

Oddly, while notching four consecutive victories in Weeks 5 & 6, the Phoenix Mercury allowed their opponents to connect on 21 of 48 three-pointers. The Merc dropped from the top to the middle of this heap as they were rising two spots in our other two scales. The return of the big girl imposes a new dynamic on an entire team (with or without its legend) and upon any game in which she plays.

Prior Ratings and Data are available through Week 2 and Week4.

WNBA 2015: 4-week Ratings

Despite the traditionally mopey pace of the WNBA’s early-season calendar, Commissioner Ritchie and her schedule-maker are to be commended on their work for the 2015 season. Through 28 days and 60 games, on only three occasions has a fresh team caught an opponent on the tail-end of a back-to-back (all playing at home, to boot) – and tired legs emerged victorious one time. (Five other games have pitted two squads on second nights.)

The oft conflicting efforts of maximizing league exposure while moderating an individual franchise’s travel expense inevitably require players and coaches to manage playing on consecutive days. Three more double dead-leggers remain on the schedule, and ten “advantage” games are yet to be played. The Washington Mystics, who’ve already squandered a rest-edge game to Atlanta, will get three more cracks at doing better. Just Connecticut, Phoenix and Tulsa enjoy as many as two such opportunities for the season.

Here’s how the teams rate after a month. (All data reflects play through Thursday, July 2.)

Power Rankings --The Measurement Instrument

Our team-ranking tool utilizes four elements. Two scales are based solely on team wins and losses; the others are measures of the efficiency of team performance in comparison with the competition. First, we’ll simply use win-loss record irrespective of conference.

The second criterion will be the difference between a team’s road wins and its home losses. Since this cute little metric is said to be a personal favorite of current Sacramento Kings coach George Karl, let’s call this the Karl Kount (KK).

Criterion No. 3, Conversion Quotient (CQ), involves the rate at which a team converts its possessions into a successful field goals or free throw attempts. Like the KK, the computation is simple subtraction—a team’s rate of offensive efficiency minus that of the opponent.

Lastly, please allow Abacus to introduce the “SPOR-t” score. SPOR-t stands for “Shooting Plus Offensive Rebounds minus turnovers.” Add a team’s FG percentage and its offensive rebounding percentage (o. boards divided by missed FG’s). Then subtract the percentage of a team’s possessions lost to turnovers. For example, a team shoots field goals at a .488 clip, its offensive rebounds account for .199 of its missed field goals, and .143 of its possessions result in a turnover. So its SPOR-t is (488+199-143) or 544. Once again, our measurement will be the difference between the SPOR-t scores of a team and its opposition.

We’ll rank the teams from 1 to 12 in all criteria and simply add up the rankings. Low score wins, naturally.

No. 1 Minnesota Lynx (6)

[2-week Abacus rating: 2]

7-2, .778; 1^st seed West / 1^st overall                                              

KK:  +3; (4 Road Wins – 1 Home Loss) / No. 1 overall (tied)*

CQ:  +62; (.489 [2^nd] - .427 [2^nd]) / No. 1 overall

SPOR-t:  +90; (526 [3^rd] – 436 [5^th]) / No. 2 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Lynx take and make the fewest three-pointers in the league, yet rank in the top half in “Three-ficiency” – see below.

No. 2 Tulsa Shock (10)

[2-week Abacus rating: 1]

8-3, .727; 2^nd seed West / 2^nd overall

KK:  +3; (3 Road Wins – 0 Home Losses) / No. 1 overall (tied)*

CQ:  +20; (.472 [4^th] - .452 [6^th]) / No. 5 overall

SPOR-t:  +109; (549 [1^st] – 440 [3^rd]) / No. 1 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Shock stand No. 2 in per-game scoring despite having the second worst FG shooting (.395) in the league.

No. 3 Connecticut Sun (15)

[2-week Abacus rating: 3]

7-3, .700; 1^st seed East / 3^rd overall

KK:  +1; (4 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 5 overall

CQ:  +33; (.466 [5^th] - .433 [3^rd]) / No. 3 overall

SPOR-t:  +53; (509 [4^th] – 456 [5^th]) / No. 4 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Sun remain the best in the league at forcing turnovers, nearly one in four (.225) opponent possessions.

No. 4 New York Liberty (16)

[2-week Abacus rating: 6]

6-4, .600; 2^nd seed East / 4^th overall (tied)

KK:  0; (2 Road Wins – 2 Home Losses) / No. 6 overall (tied)

CQ:  +34; (.454 [7^th] - .420 [1^st]) / No. 2 overall

SPOR-t:  +78; (470 [8^th] – 392 [1^st]) / No. 3 overall

Abacus Revelation: The rugged Liberty are best in the league at protecting their defensive backboard, limiting opponents to an Offensive Rebounding Percentage of .181.

No. 5 Chicago Sky (17)

[2-week Abacus rating: 3]

6-5, .545; 4^th seed East / 6^th overall

KK:  +3; (4 Road Wins – 1 Home Loss) / No. 1 overall (tied)*

CQ:  +30; (.499 [1^st] - .469 [8^th]) / No. 4 overall

SPOR-t:  +33; (540 [2^nd] – 507 [8^th]) / No. 5 overall

Abacus Revelation: The best shooting and highest scoring team in the league has been neglecting the three-point arc to its detriment – see below.)

No. 6 Washington Mystics (21.5)

[2-week Abacus rating: 5]

6-4, .600; 2^nd seed East / 4^th overall (tied)

KK:  +2; (3 Road Wins – 1 Home Loss) / No. 4 overall

CQ:  +12; (.462 [6^th] - .450 [4^th]) / No. 6 overall

SPOR-t:  -17; (490 [5^th] – 507 [8^th]) / No. 7 overall

Abacus Revelation: Mystic opponents made 30 FG’s per game during the third and fourth weeks, after being held to 23 a night during the opening fortnight.

No. 7 Phoenix Mercury (29.5)

[2-week Abacus rating: 7]

5-5, .500; 3^rd seed West / 7^th overall

KK:  0; (1 Road Win – 1 Home Loss) / No. 6 overall (tied)

CQ:  +1; (.452 [8^th] - .451 [5^th]) / No. 7 overall

SPOR-t:  -59; (446 [11^th] – 505 [7^th]) / No. 9 overall

Abacus Revelation: Mercury opponents make 3.6 three-pointers per game, fewest in the league.

No. 8 Indiana Fever (32)

[2-week Abacus rating: 10]

5-6, .445; 5^th seed East / 8^th overall

KK:  -1; (3 Road Win – 4 Home Losses) / No. 8 overall

CQ:  -9; (.475 [3^rd] - .484 [10^th]) / No. 8 overall

SPOR-t:  -46; (489 [6^th] – 535 [11^th]) / No. 8 overall

Abacus Revelation: The league’s best three-point shooting team also attempts the most free throws, over 23 per game.

No. 9 Atlanta Dream (33.5)

[2-week Abacus rating: 8]

4-6, .400; 6^th seed East / 9^th overall

KK:  -2; (1 Road Win – 3 Home Losses) / No. 9 overall (tied)

CQ:  -25; (.431 [12^th] - .456 [7^th]) / No. 9 overall

SPOR-t:  +30; (483 [7^th] – 453 [4^th]) / No. 6 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Dream corral almost five more offensive rebounds a game than their opponents.

No. 10 Seattle Storm (40.5)

[2-week Abacus rating: 9]

3-7, .300; 4^th seed West / 10^th overall

KK:  -2; (1 Road Win – 3 Home Losses) / No. 9 overall (tied)

CQ:  -40; (.435 [11^th] - .475 [9^th]) / No. 10 overall

SPOR-t:  -105; (399 [12^th] – 504 [6^th]) / No. 11 overall

Abacus Revelation: Despite struggling to score, the Storm have the third best FG shooting percentage (.428) in the league.

No. 11 San Antonio Stars (45.5)

[2-week Abacus rating: 11]

2-8, .200; 5^th seed West / 11^th overall

KK:  -3; (0 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 11 overall (tied)

CQ:  -57; (.444 [9^th] - .501 [11^th]) / No. 11 overall

SPOR-t:  -132; (453 [10^th] – 585 [12^th]) / No. 12 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Stars are the poorest three-point shooting team in the league.

No. 11 Los Angeles Sparks (45.5)

[2-week Abacus rating: 12]

1-7, .125; 6^th seed West / 12^th overall

KK:  -3; (0 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 11 overall (tied)

CQ:  -74; (.438 [10^th] - .512 [12^th]) / No. 12 overall

SPOR-t:  -64; (454 [9^th] – 518 [10^th]) / No. 10 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Sparks increased their per-game scoring by over 20 points in their last five games.

You Asked For It (Well, I Did)

Kristi Tolliver returned from an overseas commitment to give the Sparks a 43-point game. Elena Della Donne often has a double-double – maybe a fist full of blocks as well – by halftime. Catchings, Griner and Ogwumike the Elder are adapting from age, suspension and ailment. And Maya Moore is, well, starting to play like Maya Moore.

All that skill and savvy has me fantasizing about a WNBA One-on-One Tournament. Imagine the match-ups. No one would want to play Rebekkah Brunson or Sancho Lyttle.

With that in mind, let’s look at the best and worst shooting and scoring teams.

The Grading Scale

To rank the teams, we’ll consider Points per game, Points per shot (i.e. field goal attempt), Points per possession and S(H)UM. (That last category is simply the sum of a team’s FG%, 3FG% and FT%.)

Again, we’ll rank the teams from 1 to 12 in all criteria and simply add up the rankings.

No. 1 Chicago Sky [5]

[2-week rating: 1]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

84.6 [1^st] – 1.217 [1^st] –1.021 [1^st] – 1611 [2^nd]

No. 2 Minnesota Lynx [11]

[2-week rating: 2]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

76.3 [5^th] – 1.216 [2^nd] –0.997 [3^rd] – 1627 [1^st]

No. 3 Indiana Fever [15]

[2-week rating: 5]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

77.8 [3^rd] – 1.212 [3^rd] –0.967 [5^th] – 1563 [4^th]

No. 4 Tulsa Shock [17]

[2-week rating: 3]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

78.6 [2^nd] – 1.110 [8^th] –1.001 [2^nd] – 1558 [5^th]

No. 5 Washington Mystics [23.5]

[2-week rating: 8]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

73.3 [7^th] – 1.154 [5^th] –0.971 [4^th] – 1537 [7^th]

No. 6 Phoenix Mercury [25]

[2-week rating: 6]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

74.8 [6^th] – 1.139 [6^th] –0.936 [7^th] – 1557 [6^th]

No. 7 Connecticut Sun [30]

[2-week rating: 4]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

77.5 [4^th] – 1.099 [10^th] –0.958 [6^th] – 1498 [10^th]

No. 8 New York Liberty [31]

[2-week rating: 7]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

72.3 [9^th] – 1.166 [4^th] –0.915 [9^th] – 1525 [9^th]

No. 9 Los Angeles Sparks [34]

[2-week rating: 12]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

68.4 [12^th] – 1.094 [11^th] –0.924 [8^th] – 1575 [3^rd]

No. 10 Seattle Storm [35.5]

[2-week rating: 10]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

69.8 [11^th] – 1.135 [7^th] –0.910 [10^th] – 1537 [7^th]

No. 11 San Antonio Stars [41]

[2-week rating: 11]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

71.7 [10^th] – 1.101 [9^th] –0.906 [11^th] – 1475 [11^th]

No. 12 Atlanta Dream [44]

[2-week rating: 9]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  S(H)UM

72.8 [8^th] – 1.041 [12^th] –0.872 [12^th] – 1433 [12^th]

Three-ficiency

As basketball is evolving here in the 21^st Century, “judicious accuracy” and “consistent challenge” seem to capture the offensive and defensive (respectively) philosophies for the more successful teams when it comes to three-point shooting.

Check out the who’s sitting atop the standings or playing deep into the playoffs and invariably these squads invariably hold high ratings in both utilizing and defending the “stripe.”

Let’s try ranking the teams by the difference between their own three-point shooting and that of the opposition. (Attempts and makes are presented “per-game” for ease of comparison.)

No. 1 Phoenix Mercury   [+106]

[2-week rating: 3]

.333 [3^rd] – 5.2 [6^th] out of 15.6 [7^th]

.267 [1^st] – 3.6 [1^st] out of 13.5 [3^rd]

No. 2 Tulsa Shock   [+75]

[2-week rating: 2]

.369 [2^nd] – 7.18 [1^st] out of 19.45 [1^st]

.294 [3^rd] – 4.27 [4^th] out of 14.55 [5^th]

No. 3 Indiana Fever   [+53]

[2-week rating: 7]

.390 [1^st] – 6.09 [3^rd] out of 15.64 [6^th]

.337 [9^th] – 5.18 [7^th] out of 15.36 [6^th]

No. 4 Washington Mystics   [+43]

[2-week rating: 4]

.332 [4^th] – 6.4 [2^nd] out of 19.3 [2^nd]

.289 [2^nd] – 3.7 [2^nd] out of 12.8 [2^nd]

No. 5 Minnesota Lynx   [+11]

[2-week rating: 5]

.316 [7^th] – 3.33 [12^th] out of 10.56 [12^th]

.305 [4^th] – 5.56 [8^th] out of 18.22 [10^th]

No. 6 Connecticut Sun   [+9]

[2-week rating: 1]

.323 [6^th] – 5.4 [5^th] out of 16.7 [4^th]

.314 [5^th] – 4.3 [5^th] out of 13.7 [4^th]

No. 7 Seattle Storm   [+2]

[2-week rating: 6]

.324 [5^th] – 5.5 [4^th] out of 17.0 [3^rd]

.322 [7^th] – 5.9 [9^th] out of 18.3 [11^th]

No. 8 Los Angeles Sparks   [-9]

[2-week rating: 12]

.310 [9^th] – 5.0 [7^th] out of 16.13 [5^th]

.319 [6^th] – 4.75 [6^th] out of 17.0 [9^th]

No. 9 New York Liberty   [-42]

[2-week rating: 11]

.311 [8^th] – 3.7 [11^th] out of 11.9 [11^th]

.353 [10^th] – 7.1 [12^th] out of 20.1 [12^th]

No. 10 San Antonio Stars   [-62]

[2-week rating: 8]

.271 [12^th] – 4.2 [8^th] out of 15.5 [8^th]

.333 [8^th] – 3.7 [2^nd] out of 11.1 [1^st]

No. 11 Chicago Sky   [-74]

[2-week rating: 10]

.297 [10^th] – 3.73 [10^th] out of 12.45 [10^th]

.371 [12^th] – 6.27 [11^th] out of 16.91 [8^th]

No. 12 Atlanta Dream   [-78]

[2-week rating: 9]

.280 [11^th] – 4.2 [8^th] out of 15.0 [9^th]

.358 [11^th] – 5.9 [9^th] out of 16.5 [7^th]

Home Court Advantage

The Home team has won 34 of the league’s first 60 games (57%). The Stars and Sparks are the only squads yet to win on the road. Tulsa navigated through its first month without a home loss, the only team to reach Week 5 so unscathed.

Week 2 Ratings and Data available here.

MLB 2015 at 12 Weeks: Starting Pitching’s Durable and Dependable

Twelve weeks, 1,134 games, 245 starting pitchers – and the season has not quite reached its mid-point. 146 pitchers have started at least eight games; 128 have a minimum of ten starts; and 95 have answered every call to duty to this point in the season.

Out of 2,268 starting assignments, MLB starters have amassed 695 performances of at least seven innings, 42 complete games (including four of the rain-shortened variety) of which exactly half have been shutouts. Seven pitchers have recorded multiple complete games, led by Houston’s Dallas Keuchel and Toronto’s grizzled vet Mark Buehrle with three. Keuchel, Atlanta’s Shelby Miller and Max Scherzer of the Nationals (who also owns the season’s sole no-hitter) have notched a pair of shutouts.

Scherzer has been the paragon of durability so far in 2015. In all but three of his 15 starts, Mad Max has been credited with a minimum of 21 outs.  Ten other players have lasted a minimum of seven innings in 60 percent of their starting assignments, though two – San Diego’s Brandon Morrow, who has been disabled since early May, and Washington spot starter Joe Ross – have turned the trick on minimal (five and three, respectively) starts. Here’s a quick breakdown on that Nifty Nine. (The +/- score represents a value rating of performance in comparison with overall team performance; rank is among the 128 pitchers with 10 or more starts – we’ll get back to that momentarily.)

[NOTE: All our data reflects play through Sunday, June 28.]

Scherzer  15 starts (12 long, 80%), 2 CG’s, 1 No-Decision, +102 (No. 23)*

Johnny Cueto  14 starts (10 long, 71%), 0 CG’s, 5 No-Decisions, +49 (No. 48)*

Jeff Samardzija  16 starts (11 long, 69%), 0 CG’s, 7 No-Decisions, +65 (No. 43)*

Keuchel  16 starts (10 long, 63%), 3 CG’s, 4 No-Decisions, +155 (No. 9)*

Madison Bumgarner  16 starts (10 long, 63%), 1 CG, 4 No-Decisions, +70 (No. 40)*

Corey Kluber  16 starts (10 long, 63%), 1 CG, 4 No-Decisions, -227 (No. 127)*

Cole Hamels  15 starts (9 long, 60%), 0 CG’s, 4 No-Decisions, +110 (No. 21)*

Jacob deGrom  15 starts (9 long, 60%), 0 CG’s, 2 No-Decisions, +89 (No. 28)*

John Lackey  15 starts (9 long, 60%), 1 CG, 5 No-Decisions, -80 (No. 99)*

By “decisions,” MLB’s winningest pitcher has been Pittsburgh’s Gerritt Cole with 11, while the Mariners’ Felix Hernandez and Cardinals’ Michael Wacha have each earned 10. But David Price of Detroit is the only pitcher to take the bump for 13 of his team’s victories. Wacha and teammate Carlos Martinez have 12; Cole, Hernandez and six other American Leaguers (including two Houston Astros) stand at 11 “team wins.”

On the flip side, Aaron Harang of the Phillies and Colorado opening-day starter Kyle Kendrick top the heap with 10 losing decisions, though Cleveland’s Corey Kluber, reigning AL Cy Young winner, has seen his Indians drop 13 of his 16 starts. Seven other pitchers (all NLers, three of them Brewers) have endured double-digit "team losses."

Here’s a little ranking device for starting pitchers called the McGinnity Measure, designed to reward starting pitchers for durability while holding them accountable for the outcome of their games. A pitcher receives a credit for each start of seven innings or more (LS), and is awarded an additional credit for each complete game (CG). A credit is deducted for each start his team loses, and additionally for each losing decision as a starter. Total credits are divided by the pitcher’s total starts. Here are the top five in each league by the McGinnity Measure:

AL: Keuchel (.313), Price (.250), Hernandez (.125), Buehrle (.000), Houston’s Collin McHugh (.000)

NL: Scherzer (.267) and Bumgarner, Cole, Lackey, and Miller (.000).

They are trailed by the Dodgers’ Zack Greinke (-0.063) and Martinez, Wacha and KC’s Edinson Volquez (-0.067).

[For a more thorough discussion of the McGinnity Measure, read this.]

An alternate method adds wins to the LS’s and CG’s. The results and rankings are similar though not identical. From the Top 14 noted above, Lackey, Miller and Greinke are replaced by the Mets’ Jacob deGrom, SF’s Chris Heston and the Rays’ Chris Archer.

By this calculation, Scherzer (2.200) noses out Keuchel (2.063), the only pitchers to grade out above 2.000 (which, like 0.000 on the other scale, represents the mathematical midpoint for the range of potential scores). But let’s notice that Keuchel is only No.9 and Scherzer a perhaps improbable No. 23 using the +/- score referenced above.

What’s going on – and who else is so much better? You might be surprised to find out.

Not particularly shocking is that Price tops this heap, nor that King Felix is third, Cole seventh and “Big Game James” Shields eighth – maybe not even Oakland’s Sonny Gray sitting at No. 6.

But slots two, four and five are owned by the Indians’ Danny Salazar, Toronto’s Drew Hutchison and Tampa Bay’s Erasmo Ramirez, respectively.

Huh?

Bear in mind, it’s a lot easier to exceed the performance of a .445 team like Cleveland than, say, a .558 team such as Scherzer’s Nats.

But before we dismiss this idea as inherently flawed, I’d like to point out that this “heap” has correctly identified the Cy Young award winners more often than not over the past four or five years. Here’s how it works. 

We'll identify the pitcher's won-loss record in his starts (decisions from relief appearances not allowed), as well as the team's record in all starts (including his No-Decisions).  Simply take the average of these two percentages; then just subtract the team's final winning percentage.

Consideration is limited to pitchers with a minimum of 10 games started.

Example A:  16 starts -- player (8-1, .889), team (11-5, .688); team overall (41-36, .532).  So, the equation becomes: [(889 + 688) / 2] - 532 = 789 - 532 = +257.  {Hutchison}

Example B: 16 starts -- player (3-9, .250), team (3-13, .188); team overall (33-41, .446).  The calculation this time: {(250 + 188) / 2} - 446 = 219 - 446 = -227.  {Kluber}

I’m inclined to view the best guys by this standard as the MVSP’s – the Most Valuable Starting Pitchers – at least when it comes to measurable team success. And let the record show that, despite being tenth best in the National League, Scherzer’s score of +102 tops a pretty darned good rotation for a division-leading squad.